Vote on Crewed MBT

Livefire · 2012-10-02, 06:14 AM

Higby mentioned this site and it looks like we have a chance to get this important issue majorly noticed. I know a lot of us PS1 vets want to see this feature back in the game along with many other things (that PS2 is currently lacking).
http://planetside-tracker.com/sugges...ing-a-purpose/

Gugabalog · 2012-10-02, 06:55 AM

Voted! Was a wonderful post

Livefire · 2012-10-02, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

That website is sexy. Tbh there is 47% of the playerbase you just cant convince. Fuck 'em.

Exactly, but now the Devs will see for sure the majority stand with us so VOTE!

Firearms · 2012-10-02, 09:29 AM

I played more DC and 1942 than PS1 so was against the idea - or at best not arsed.
That post changed that.

Because of that though - Magrider should have a crew, turret and redesign also.

Hosp · 2012-10-02, 10:01 AM

That article, while thorough, is ignoring quite a bit:

What happens to the second gun?
If the gunner controls both guns, that still leaves a reduction in effectiveness.
Either
A) The gunner has to focus on 1 target and hope a second, that the secondary gun might be beneficial against, doesn't come into play.
OR
B) The driver gets the secondary gun and then still can't focus fully on driving.

The Lib argument can be made that yes, the Pilot can control the main gun. Swap out the Nose-gun (once you get the certs). It can be a good tank killer, albeit at more risk due to having to fly lower. But It'd be just like the Vulture of PS1.

Nothing wrong with making it a cert. So they upgrade their tank before certing for the solo option, or cert the solo option then save certs for the upgrades. What's so unfair about that?

I agree about a second crew necessary MBT. There's no need for it. Maybe a Medium tank of sorts or Fighting Vehicle. Armored APC better than a lightning but w/o the firepower of an MBT. 1 Driver/Gunner, 4-5 passengers and can't carry MAXs. But I'm just thinking outloud now.

It's unfortunate, but the "Casual" gamers are always the majority, and alienating the majority is a good way for the F2P model to fail.
There are ways to satisfy both sides and get votes from all 58 states. But saying "all the vets agree" isn't the way as vets are casual gamers too.

Firearms · 2012-10-02, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Hosp

It's unfortunate, but the "Casual" gamers are always the majority, and alienating the majority is a good way for the F2P model to fail.

I thought the Liberator references made this point moot - You're not gonna lose a player because he can't make full use of a Lib - He'll get a reaver etc and aspire to making friends when he gets in a lib or see's one in action....
The same goes for MBT IMO as he has a single seat option.....

Maarvy · 2012-10-02, 10:17 AM

I like tanks how they are ...

Cosidering the cost I dont have a problem with a 1 man MBT taking down a lightning .

1 man mbt looses most of the time vs a fully crewed mbt , and if the fully crewed mbt has a upgraded top gun then it can take out 2 or in my experiance often more single crewed MBT's .

AS mentioned giving the gunner both wepons in fact reduces the overall effectiveness of the MBT especialy in situations where your playing peekaboo with multiple Heavy infantry .

Hosp · 2012-10-02, 10:48 AM

he has a single seat option.....

That's what I'm getting at. Leave the option there and open, for any otherwise multi-crewed vehicle. Could be a certable option as mentioned, could be via unlocked weapons (ala Auraxium), the point is, the option is there.

ArcGuard · 2012-10-02, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Livefire

Exactly, but now the Devs will see for sure the majority of the people who are actively for/against something stand with us so VOTE!

ftfy.

It's a cool idea, but you have to understand the demographic sites like that attract vs. the playerbase.

maradine · 2012-10-02, 12:33 PM

I voted against it. I don't think it's the correct decision for the long-term viability of the game in today's market. Coincidentally, I also like gunning my own ride. At risk of repeating myself, I'd also say I'm fine with both options being on the table, and even split gunning being the un-certed default.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-10-02, 01:24 PM

I like how its setup now. If you want to solo a mbt then more power to you. If you want to go with a secondary gunner then you are only creating an advantage for yourself. I dont want to be forced to look for a gunner so I can have a tank. And I can give a shit about the liberator argument.

VaderShake · 2012-10-02, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I like how its setup now. If you want to solo a mbt then more power to you. If you want to go with a secondary gunner then you are only creating an advantage for yourself. I dont want to be forced to look for a gunner so I can have a tank. And I can give a shit about the liberator argument.

The Liberator argument while a practical example is not comparable because the Liberator Pilot has access to a weapon, even if it is less powerful. Yes, 3 people in a Liberator working together is wonderful...sitting around waiting/hoping for 2 people to get in your tank and stay in your tank to gun is not. Also for the team play argument you will find people who take a tank and will jump seats anyway instead of waiting for a crew.

I think the hope should be let them get PS2 out, then add some really cool crewed vehicles after the population grows, I think more people would be inclined to try crewing after they are hooked on the core game. Also I would love to see a moving seige tower/ Goliath 2142 crewed vehicle for the ground or crewed Battle Walkers and hopefully someday crewed ships either in space or water.

Timealude · 2012-10-02, 02:24 PM

The one thing i dont like about the article is how they throw the magrider under the bus saying it benefits from the front mounted gun, when actually its a huge nerf from PS1. Infantry can get behind us extremely easy as well as lightnings. If your gonna add the crew requirement to the MBT do it to all of them or dont do it at all.

BorisBlade · 2012-10-02, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Maarvy

I like tanks how they are ...

Cosidering the cost I dont have a problem with a 1 man MBT taking down a lightning .

1 man mbt looses most of the time vs a fully crewed mbt , and if the fully crewed mbt has a upgraded top gun then it can take out 2 or in my experiance often more single crewed MBT's .

AS mentioned giving the gunner both wepons in fact reduces the overall effectiveness of the MBT especialy in situations where your playing peekaboo with multiple Heavy infantry .

Its not about how it fares versus a ligtning, its teh fact that its the same boring experience. A multi crew tank plays totally different from a lightning. For example your peekaboo scenario is due to solo tanks. Driver-only tanks dont do the boring sit still and fight BS in all other games except Planetside 1. They move around the battlefield in much more interesting and exciting fights. The fun of playing with friends in a multicrew tank is insanely fun and far more interesting than the boring solo tanks which are just glorified max suits.

And again, we dont need two solo tanks, there's just no need and it adds nothing. We need a heaver tank with more players. I can then pick vehicles partially based on the manpower available which just adds yet another layer of variety, balance, and tactics.

Ohaunlaim · 2012-10-03, 07:30 AM

Seems to be a bit of confusion here... lets clarify. Most propositions for multicrew tanks for PS2 look like the following;

lightning - 1 person (driver/M. gunner)
magrider - 2 people (driver/S. gunner + M. gunner)*
prowler - 3 people (driver + M. gunner + S. gunner)
vanguard - 3 people (driver + M. gunner + S. gunner)

* The solution to the magrider, to prevent it from becoming a solo players paradise, in PS1 was to make the driver's gun secondary in power and effectiveness. A solution not impossible to implement in PS2.

I will second Boris in that the vehicle battles that resulted from multicrew tanks in PS1 were extremely dynamic and mobile. Lightnings that tried to mimic the scoot and shoot play were not as affective, and tended use move/park/shoot or peek-a-boo shooting strategies. The northern flatlands of Indar would be so much more fun to play on with multicrew tanks, although the south might not be able to provide many chances for such mobile fire fights.